A Catholic Blog
A priest writing reflections on theology, philosophy, and Catholicism. I'll occasionaly write movie reviews, rants, and discussion topics. I write from my experiences, personal and intellectual, for my benefit and yours (should you get any from it). None of what I write is official or representative of my diocese or parish, just my semi-public attempt at figuring things out and sharing it with you for the sake of dialogue.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Note: I apologize for my sporadic posting these past months. Big tests, traveling, and hospital ministry have taken me away from my writing. My hope is to start writing more soon, provided I have something interesting to write about.

I am also experimenting with using this spacing on my articles to make them a bit easier to read. No pictures this time either, sorry :(. I do hope we get some good discussion out of this, though.

The
first is “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of
Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” (1997). -
See more at:
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/08/30/new-language-speaking-homosexuality/#sthash.iIaQ3CTM.dpuf

The
first is “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of
Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” (1997). -
See more at:
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/08/30/new-language-speaking-homosexuality/#sthash.iIaQ3CTM.dpuf

The
first is “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of
Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” (1997). -
See more at:
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/08/30/new-language-speaking-homosexuality/#sthash.iIaQ3CTM.dpuf

The
first is “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of
Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” (1997). -
See more at:
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/08/30/new-language-speaking-homosexuality/#sthash.iIaQ3CTM.dpuf

One of the more
popular, misunderstood, and challenging problems Catholics face today
is the topic of homosexuality. I think of the many great strides we
as a Church and as a culture have taken in speaking about it. In the
same way, neither side whether secular or religious, has spoken more
clearly on the subject. Catholics, at the very least, have always
been very good at making distinctions. The process of making
distinctions is not just good philosophy and theology, but it also
aids in our practical and charitable responses to what we experience.

When we respond to
homosexuality we should know what it is. Moreover, when someone is
homosexual it does us little good to categorize that person according
to preconceived notions about their sexual activity, sexual purity,
or moral state. In fact I've usually seen these reactions as one's
own personal, moral blindness than as a useful discussion geared
towards understanding something so as to respond to it more
effectively.

That being said, I
also see among many Catholics and (more understandably, perhaps)
secular homosexuals a departure from language such as “disordered.”
A great deal of language focuses on “natural” sexual desire. It
should be granted that the word “nature” (or “natural”) is
not as clear as it first appears, but some have achieved a greater
sense of clarity about it.

Part of my worry is
that even good, Catholic homosexuals have found the language of
“disorder” offensive and disheartening. My worry is not so much
their individual feelings about the word, but it does bring forth the
valid question as to whether or not our language about homosexuality
is unsound, invalid, or ineffective.

This is also not as
easy to determine right away. Our language could be unsound it simply
isn't true or because we are operating under false premises. It may
be invalid simply because what we do know about the human person and
human sexuality is not properly expressed (i.e., our conclusions may
not be properly derived from our premises). Our language may be
ineffective as a result. Effectiveness is not only a matter of truth
but also rhetoric. Speaking ineffectively is just as
damaging to an argument as it is to be untrue or be lacking
logically. This also accepts that, like Jesus, some people simply
will not accept what is true—but this should stop us from pausing
and considering our own words.

Should we discard
the use of the term “disordered,” then? I am inclined to say 'no'
for the time being. I say this for a number of reasons, some of which
I'll list:

(1) is that
scientifically speaking we do not know what causes one to be
homosexual or to what degree one is a homosexual. Furthermore, as
part of our species, what function or role does homosexuality play?

(2) The notion
of “disordered” is often improperly univocated. There can be
disordered states of being and there can be disordered acts. An act
whose content or purpose is “good,” such as sex, but which is
realized improperly is disordered. Thus both homosexuals and
heterosexuals can engage in “disordered” sex.

Something that
is disordered, however, is both simple and complex. An eye that
cannot see is “disordered” insofar as it can not operate
according to its purpose. A keyboard whose keys work except the “t,”
“h,” and “e” is unable to fulfill its function adequately.

Thus something can
be “disordered” either in execution (i.e., how it's carried out)
or through inability (i.e., it's incapable of doing what it should).

Catholics hold that
the purpose of sex is unitive and procreative. The act of sex is
reserved as an expression of marital love. This does not mean that
sex must result in procreation. Marital sex must be open to the
possibility of procreation lovingly, otherwise that act of sex is
disordered. Thus to be truly married and have sex according to the
order established by God, the couple must execute the act in an
“orderly” way (i.e., they must be married, freely have sex, truly
love one another, and be open to (one of) the natural consequences of
sex) and both must also be capable of fulfilling these criteria in
order to be “ordered properly” in the first place.

(3) We should not be
afraid to label ourselves as “disordered,” homosexual or
heterosexual. Sin itself is a disruption of “order” insofar as
all sin is contrary to God's will. One who is addicted to
masturbation acts in a disordered way. One who is prone to spreading
rumors and gossip acts in a disordered way. Those of us who do not go
to mass on Sunday act in a disordered way. Those who do not forgive
others for their transgressions against us act in a disordered
way.

Many of us, because of family history, genetics, or
circumstance are also born into a state of greater probability for
certain sins or vices, whether we want them or not. We are all born
into an existence both ordered by grace and disorderly because of
sin.

And so...?

My intention is not
to “solve” the problem we have since I do not believe we have the
full tools to solve it. I have some self-criticisms that I will
briefly connect to my points above:

(1) Sifting through
today's science (biology, sociology, psychology, etc.) on the subject
is at times biased, confusing, and willing to promote certain
findings for reasons that aren't always “scientific.”
Nevertheless honestly engaging what we are discovering about human
sexuality, along with their impulses, are necessary endeavors.
Regardless of a lack of scientific clarity those of us who do
minister to or interact with homosexuals (etc.) must recognize them
as persons created in the imago dei.

(2) My hope is
that there is still clarity and a lack of clarity in the term
“disordered.” How do we call homosexuality, the state of being,
“disordered.” For too long we considered someone who was openly
homosexual as one who was by necessity sexually active and predatory
to the same sex. This is simply untrue, otherwise we would have to
bring the same complaint to heterosexuals.

Homosexuals, by
virtue of their homosexuality, are still fully capable of practicing
virtues, discerning right from wrong, and making rationally informed
choices. Thus their homosexuality is not a disorder to their will
and, perhaps one could even say with confidence, their souls.

Their
biology is another matter. Their homosexuality does not affect their
internal or reproductive organs. In fact we have seen cases of
homosexuals who have a desire to reproduce yet, for obvious reasons,
can not do so by means of their 'native' sexual inclination.

Sex has the ability
to improve (or deteriorate) intimacy and trust, to procreate, and
give pleasure. In what ways does our insistence on procreation cloud
our understanding of sex. I remain, however, a firm believer in the
premise that procreation is one of the biological purposes of sex, to
which pleasure and intimacy aid in the realization of a new human
life.

(3) Perhaps this
is too negative a view of the current state which we live in. Some
are more willing than me to speak of the goodness of the
world/state/circumstance we live in. On the one hand any of us are
capable of loving another and love is the only means to break the
cycle of sin, since it is only love (according to Paul) that is
eternal. Since we have the capacity to love does this mean we are
more ordered than disordered? In many ways there is a greater
confusion over the terms “evil” and “sin,” in my view, than
terms such as “homosexuality” and marriage.

It would be good
for all of us to consider more deeply the difficulties at hand with
intentionality and patience.

The
first is “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of
Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” (1997). -
See more at:
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/08/30/new-language-speaking-homosexuality/#sthash.iIaQ3CTM.dpuf

The
first is “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of
Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” (1997). -
See more at:
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/08/30/new-language-speaking-homosexuality/#sthash.iIaQ3CTM.dpuf